"Hate Begets Hate" and Civil Politics

PoliTalker said:
Hello evince,



The Republican party does not want to destroy America.

Saying so is just as ridiculous as when conservatives claim that liberals want to destroy America.

Yes, Republicans are very foolish to be soft on Russia. And I am not even convinced that Russia seeks to destroy America. I think Putin does want to hurt America, cause her economy to suck. That way, he can continue to exploit Russians and then claim life is no better in America. If America is destroyed in the process, he's not overly concerned about that, but he does need a functioning world economy to exploit. I don't think he wants everything destroyed, nor does he have visions of world conquest.

Putin is just kind of stuck, really. He got where he is by exploiting others from the KGB all the way up to president. He has so many enemies he must hold on to power to avoid being offed. Putin can't exploit Russia and allow America to be a vibrant economy without facing too much domestic criticism and opposition or he will lose power. If he loses power he could be executed, so he must play this delicate game of hurting foreign economies as much as he hurts his own, while presenting the public lies of propaganda that he is their savior.

He lucked into a great situation when he got the goods on Trump, and got him elected.
Click to expand...

they cheat in elections and have done so for decades

thats treason huh
 
evince said:
they cheat in elections and have done so for decades

thats treason huh
Click to expand...

Speaking of cheating:

DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules

From the transcript:

"The court would have to basically tell the party that it couldn't change [the neutrality rule], even though it's a discretionary rule that it didn't need to adopt to begin with." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva

"The party could have favored a candidate. I'll put it that way. Maybe that's a better way of answering your Honor's original question. Even if it were true, that's the business of the party, and it's not justiciable." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva

"f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that's different. But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions." - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva



However, DNC lawyers have argued and continue to argue that the Democratic Party doesn't owe anyone a fair process. It has every right to disregard its own rules or interpret its rules how it wants because it is a private organization, and therefore the plaintiffs have no standing. And that is the conundrum millions of American voters find themselves in today.
Click to expand...


https://apple.news/AOkUtFgN7QIqOh3qeL5fmMg
 
Hello Controlled Opposition,

Controlled Opposition said:
PoliTalker, I did not say that everyone does it, and I certainly didn't use that as an excuse.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I did not intend to suggest that you had. I was speaking in the third person.

Controlled Opposition said:
What I did do was agree with Nifty about your, "Pollyanna talk."

Name one person whose behavior you have changed by preaching at us/them.
Click to expand...

Myself. After all, we are only ultimately responsible for ourselves. Each of us has the power within us to change how we come across here. I decided long ago that I wanted to change my posting style. It was long ago on another board. I drew my inspiration from some other posters who always seemed to come across convincingly and respectfully.

I thought: 'Wow. I want to be like that.'

The changes were slow and did not happen overnight. But I'm really happy with what I did. All of the little personal jabs and innuendos were dropped. I learned to focus on the issues being discussed, instead of who is doing the discussing.

The only person who can change you is you.

The only way that can occur is if you want to.

I am not so much trying to change people as I am making people aware of reasons why one might want to change. Since I know these changes can only occur if the individual wants to, and gradually at that, it is understandable and expected that there is no instant gratification from pointing out that political conversations are more effective without insults. Who was it, Galileo, who said 'give me a long enough lever and a place to put the fulcrum and I can move the world?'

Controlled Opposition said:
Take someone from your side of the political spectrum and change his or her behvior. I would like to suggest that you start with Mason and then follow up with Owl Woman.
Click to expand...

As I have said, it would be pointless to try to change someone who does not wish to change. It is more logical to toss out reasons why they might want to; and let them decide.

It's like when a boxed product is purchased which requires assembly. Of course you just want the thing all put together. And it may be tempting to try to jump ahead to the final step, but that almost never works. It is better to methodically read and complete each step, because the final steps require that the initial steps are already completed. There's no point in trying to put the wheels on the wagon if there are no axles yet.

Controlled Opposition said:
You should also have noted that I encouraged you to continue wasting time on your mission.
Click to expand...

I did appreciate that you said that. Sorry if I didn't realize you were looking for that recognition. Thanks for mentioning it.

I have to laugh a little, almost, sometimes. I put a thread out there to talk about something that interests me, and to see if others want to talk about it. I noticed that if MLK's words were applied to a modern chat site, that the functionality could be improved, so I wondered if anybody wanted to talk about that. Now, I can't help but notice that those who feel I am lecturing to them are perhaps moved by their own conscience to criticize my posts, instead of genuflecting? Does this line of conversation cause them to feel a bit guilty? Like, deep down inside they know I am right, but they don't want to admit it outright?

This all came about because I was reading something and learned about this group Civil Politics. I found their website and explored a little. I wondered if anyone here would have an interest, so I created a thread to talk about it. And now I've got all these people thinking I want to try to change them, thinking I am lecturing. Man, if the message is hitting home, then maybe it's something they needed to hear. And if they are feeling pressured to change, maybe some of that is coming from within. Sure, I would like to see more respect and civility on the board. Yes, I think respectful political discussions would be more productive than flame wars. Yes, I would enjoy the board more if we went that way. But I am under no delusion that such change would be so easy as telling people about it once and seeing them instantly change and promptly thank me for point it out.

When people resist a message like this, they are fighting their own inner rationale for the way they post. As if they know that what they are doing isn't very nice, so they are justifying it. I am just the messenger. I have no control.

And I have noticed that most of the posting here is all about: "Why should I change? I don't have to change!"

There has not been a single post about the OP link to the Civil Politics Organization.

It looks like nobody has gotten that far as to even explore that website. Mostly defending why they think it is OK to be rude and crude. No big surprise there.
 
Hello Fentoine Lum,

Fentoine Lum said:
I think americans have a great deal of dificulty taking resonsibility for anything, we really didn't need much outside assistance in having a go at each other, we just don't want to face that. The fact of the matter is that we have all participated, and may well continue to. If we blame someone else we'll never achieve anything other than what we have, and that's pretty much the script we've been reading from.

The more one observes the american political system, the less useful it is to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system serves to provide citizens the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly, it’s a mechanism of controlling the narrative and a manipulation of perceptual reality. If you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined “us vs them” narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you’ve got Republicans cheering for the president, Democrats cheering for the CIA and FBI, and now a sleeper cell of “adults” alleged to be operating on the inside of Trump’s own administration. Everyone’s cheering for one aspect of the US power establishment or another.

Who does this dynamic serve? Not you, me, us.

If one belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects’ continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the shot callers are anonymous amorphous entities beyond the reach of electoral outcomes, the subjects don’t know they’re ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you’d need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You’d have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

That's my view of what's gong on.

The problem for most is they have to look at the big picture, see beyond their own party, in order to recognize this.
 
Poli...I am going to have to defend the site here.

As I mentioned once before, you are doing the equivalent of coming to a cigar lounge and complaining about the smoke.

Look...there are dozens upon dozens of Internet sites that are moderated strongly enough so that the kinds of "unpleasant" discussions that take place here...CANNOT HAPPEN.

Go there...if this one bothers you so.

This is one of the few places where the exchanges can be pursued with as much vehemence as desired...and it will be tolerated.

I think your pontification that being pleasant and "cultured" rather than being "in your face" (in an Internet exchange)...is more effective in (ultimate) change...IS DEAD WRONG.

I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the extreme left/extreme right continuum...the way you suggest or the way most here operate.

I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the "Trump is a jerk-off/Trump is the answer" continuum either.

Continue the "drive to civilize" if you want...but I, for one, will fight you in that regard. A place like this...different from the MANY others that "REQUIRE" the kind of stuff you are touting...is needed.

If you honestly do not like it...really, you should go elsewhere...rather than attempting to change a one-in-dozens spot to your liking.

This site is fine the way it is...more power to the people running it for giving an alternative way of doing things a chance.
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
these influence we are currently fighting don't honor nice


they use it
Click to expand...

Do you know how silly it comes across to criticize Trump supporters for being motivated by hate, while using hate to do so?

That goes against what MLK said.

Michelle Obama was right when she said: "When they go low, we go high."

If we go low when they go low, what differentiates us from them?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Poli...I am going to have to defend the site here.

As I mentioned once before, you are doing the equivalent of coming to a cigar lounge and complaining about the smoke.

Look...there are dozens upon dozens of Internet sites that are moderated strongly enough so that the kinds of "unpleasant" discussions that take place here...CANNOT HAPPEN.

Go there...if this one bothers you so.

This is one of the few places where the exchanges can be pursued with as much vehemence as desired...and it will be tolerated.

I think your pontification that being pleasant and "cultured" rather than being "in your face" (in an Internet exchange)...is more effective in (ultimate) change...IS DEAD WRONG.

I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the extreme left/extreme right continuum...the way you suggest or the way most here operate.

I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the "Trump is a jerk-off/Trump is the answer" continuum either.

Continue the "drive to civilize" if you want...but I, for one, will fight you in that regard. A place like this...different from the MANY others that "REQUIRE" the kind of stuff you are touting...is needed.

If you honestly do not like it...really, you should go elsewhere...rather than attempting to change a one-in-dozens spot to your liking.

This site is fine the way it is...more power to the people running it for giving an alternative way of doing things a chance.
Click to expand...

Is that what this site represents? An alternative way of doing things? Seems to be more a result of how we already do things.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello evince,



Do you know how silly it comes across to criticize Trump supporters for being motivated by hate, while using hate to do so?

That goes against what MLK said.

Michelle Obama was right when she said: "When they go low, we go high."

If we go low when they go low, what differentiates us from them?
Click to expand...

Very easy to become the very thing you decry. I really cannot tell one partisanshithead from another.
 
Hello TrippyHippy,

You said, in response to rjhenn:

TrippyHippy said:
The problem with this viewpoint is it's an appeal to glittering generalities. The whole "they're anti-American, they're anti-Christian!" It's propaganda. They say the same exact thing about your side, almost word for word actually. This is the very nature of political discourse in this country. An appeal to symbolic nothings, rather than intelligent debate about the the actual issues we face.

You'd be surprised to find your cognitive bias about Trump supporters only describes a small, loud minority. Unfortunately, most of that crowd love to get on political forums like this one and dick with people. That has colored your perception of reality and made enemies out of a group that is largely made up of regular, everyday Americans.
Click to expand...

I know, right? This forum is not a typical gathering of Americans. The participants decided for themselves to come here to discuss politics. People are not as comfortable discussing politics in person. There's a lot of feelings involved, a lot of resentment and blaming. So we have the few here who decided to come here, knowing that this is a place where the foulest language and most hateful expressions can be used, stuff that would simply not be acceptable in mixed view gatherings. And trash talk then becomes a habit.

Unending trash talk doesn't happen in real life. Usually, if one person told off another person like happens here, the two would end up in a physical altercation, or would separate from one another and not wish to spend any more time together. But here, nothing happens. So it goes on and on with no end. And we do see names in the roles which have participated for a while and then left, never to return. Maybe some of them died, and then maybe some of them just got tired of it.

Maybe some decided it was not a good thing in their life to be doing. So they quit. We've seen people walk away. We've also seen people come, look around a bit, get offended, and then promptly leave. Does that make them wimps for not being able to 'take it?' Or does that make them smart for knowing it's not what they want to get into.....

Politics is not regarded highly in social circles.

People don't want to talk about politics.

Politics is dirty, messy, and it hurts feelings. People don't want to have their feelings hurt.

But politics is essential in the way we run our nation. If you want to have some control over what happens to your life, you can stay informed, get involved at any level you like, contact representatives, and vote to support what you want.

Being able to discuss the issues is informative. SOME come to Just Plain Politics to just plain talk about politics without the animosity. (Of all things. Imagine that. Just talking about politics.) If the site was really just plain politics, then flame wars would not be allowed. A more apt name for what really happens here would be SPAALOFW: Some Politics And A Lot Of Flame Wars.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Is that what this site represents? An alternative way of doing things? Seems to be more a result of how we already do things.
Click to expand...

It MAY represent how we already do things in the grand scheme of things.

But I have participated in Internet fora for over two decades...and this site is unique in the "moderation" department.

We have free rein to speak our minds as we choose (with the notable exception of a particular rule regarding minors)...and for the most part, participants do that.

When I first came here, I lectured Evince about all the swearing and personal attacks. I soon found that I was the one dropping in at a cigar lounge and complaining about the smoke.

I changed.

I am not proud of some of the stuff I post, but most of it truly needs to be said in some form...and the form I use seems to be the only form that gets attention here.

I've got three people (and apparently their socks) on IGNORE. They just seem unable to operate on a human level...and better to ignore them.

If someone wants to ignore me...fine. I have no problem.

In the meantime...I don't take much of what is said here to me or by me...too seriously. We have HUGE differences of opinions on Donald Trump and right wing policies...and that is A OK with me.
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
It is obvious we are being attacked by Russia and the republican party is aiding them
Click to expand...

Some in the Republican party might be, but most are certainly not. We have investigations in progress to learn what is going on.

evince said:
you are making your self suspect
Click to expand...

And I have seen you post so many posts in such a short period of time that I have wondered if you are a bot.

It does not go unnoticed, also, that polarization is what is really tearing our nation apart. It is no secret that if you want the nation to make no progress, to be dysfunctional, then the thing to do is try to make it as polarized as possible. Divided we fall. Intransigence never solved anything. We are humans. We are not perfect. Even if we think we are right, we must always have self-doubt and be willing to listen to honest criticism. If it is correct, and we are wrong, then we need to be ready to recognize that and admit it. Unless, of course, you maintain that you are perfect, that your view is beyond reproach, above criticism.

If you truly believe in your view, you need to be willing to submit it for fair criticism. If none can be found, then it is more likely to be truly correct. But without passing that test, it is nothing but another opinion.

Hint: That does not involve name-calling. It's called, of all things, talking about the issues; not one another.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It MAY represent how we already do things in the grand scheme of things.

But I have participated in Internet fora for over two decades...and this site is unique in the "moderation" department.

We have free rein to speak our minds as we choose (with the notable exception of a particular rule regarding minors)...and for the most part, participants do that.

When I first came here, I lectured Evince about all the swearing and personal attacks. I soon found that I was the one dropping in at a cigar lounge and complaining about the smoke.

I changed.

I am not proud of some of the stuff I post, but most of it truly needs to be said in some form...and the form I use seems to be the only form that gets attention here.

I've got three people (and apparently their socks) on IGNORE. They just seem unable to operate on a human level...and better to ignore them.

If someone wants to ignore me...fine. I have no problem.

In the meantime...I don't take much of what is said here to me or by me...too seriously. We have HUGE differences of opinions on Donald Trump and right wing policies...and that is A OK with me.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, I could never take this seriously either. But hell, that's how I take the political and economic system, because they're just like this website. Hell I don't see much of an argument to take this soceity seriously. For all the same reasons.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello evince,



Some in the Republican party might be, but most are certainly not. We have investigations in progress to learn what is going on.



And I have seen you post so many posts in such a short period of time that I have wondered if you are a bot.

It does not go unnoticed, also, that polarization is what is really tearing our nation apart. It is no secret that if you want the nation to make no progress, to be dysfunctional, then the thing to do is try to make it as polarized as possible. Divided we fall. Intransigence never solved anything. We are humans. We are not perfect. Even if we think we are right, we must always have self-doubt and be willing to listen to honest criticism. If it is correct, and we are wrong, then we need to be ready to recognize that and admit it. Unless, of course, you maintain that you are perfect, that your view is beyond reproach, above criticism.

If you truly believe in your view, you need to be willing to submit it for fair criticism. If none can be found, then it is more likely to be truly correct. But without passing that test, it is nothing but another opinion.

Hint: That does not involve name-calling. It's called, of all things, talking about the issues; not one another.
Click to expand...

evince is appauled by all the polarization.
 
Hello Fentoine Lum,

Fentoine Lum said:
I support any serious effort to have publically funded elections, I'm not sure you digested what I wrote.

The two-headed one party system serves to provide citizens the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly, it’s a mechanism of controlling the narrative and a manipulation of perceptual reality.

I expect we disagree on that. You support a party that is forever trying OVER and OVER again, but that is their role. To try over and over and over and fail. Please join them in welcoming Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I think evince only heard what she wanted to hear. As soon as you mention anything bad about the Democratic Party then that's all she's going to respond to. She will come bounding forward to defend the Dem party from anything no matter what. It is as if the party is completely unable to do wrong.

Everything else will be disregarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top